I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
Why I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist

“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
-Malcolm Maggeridge

“Let no one say we are in an unimaginative age, neither the greeks nor the norseman ever invented a better story. Even to the present day, in certain moods, I could almost find it in my heart to wish that it was not mythical, but true. And yet, how could it be.”
-C.S Lewis on evolution Quoted in C.S Lewis Anti-Darwinist Jerry Bergman WIPF and Stock Eugene Oregon 2016

From Evolutionist to Creationist

I was raised to believe in evolution through the politically correct government school system and also influenced my media and documentary types. At this time in my life [22 and under] I did not know how to think critically, I simply was taught to accept anything I was told and repeat it back, the better I could the better I was. It was not until around 23 I was challenged to look critically at what I had accepted without question. This led me to read sources I did not know existed and was given information that was deliberately left out of textbooks. I started watching debates and time and again the creation side was verified and the evolutionist side was shown to be built on faith and assumptions contrary to observation. I also found evolutionist had distorted evidence and lied to get me to believe in their religion. This pushed me from their faith. The final straw is in their inability to point to any one example for upward complexity evolution. Despite million of tax money and many years invested, not one evidence can be found to support evolution by common decent. However there are added issues, there are many lines of evidence from observation that refute evolution and put it in the faith alone category. It is ok to believe it, but that is a faith statement.

The Fossil Record

The fossil record deserves its own post and will come later.


Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20934&d=1532264129]

Mutations work against evolution by destroying information. We have done millions of years worth of experiments with fruit fly's and bacteria and noone has ever observed new information being created. We also have all of our observation with living things that show evolution is impossible by mutations. If evolution cannot explain the origin of genetic information than evolution is refuted by observation.

“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.”
-Spetner, L. 1997. Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution. Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press.

‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.

“There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
-DR Werner Gitt head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology

“The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it.” remains a formidable problem.”
- Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p81

"Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.

“the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time.”
Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics 2012

“The main mechanism for producing gentic variety required for evolution, random mutation, has been falsified”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and forgeries 2017

Origin of Life From Non life

For life to come from non life a few scientific laws such as the law of information and the law of The law of biogenesis must be violated.

"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
-Horgan, J. Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998

Irreducible complexity

There are many examples of biological systems that could not have arisen one at a time over long periods of time, but had to be there together at same time. An example, certain protein machines are needed to read DNA, but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the DNA. Or that the heart kidney and lung all work together, without any one of them the others could not survive. Enzymes controlled dna systems replication
dna controlled rna systems transcription, rna controlled protein sythesis translation

“According to evolution this toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all phyla, before first appearance of phyla, prior to Cambrian explosion, prior to muticulular life. The gens that control body plans had to originate, when there were no bodies to control embryonic development.Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos.“At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’s braces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52).
Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization.Stuart Newman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties.
“Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321).
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

How do things like immune system and digestive system evolve?

There are many things like the bacteria flagelum that has 40 parts that would not work together unless all there from beginning.

The heart and placenta. A pregnant woman’s placenta secretes progesterone, a hormone that signals her tiny baby’s cells to take up less cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital component of all body cells, including heart cells, and the placenta regulates cholesterol levels. Thus, the healthy development of a baby’s heart depends on the mother’s placenta. Likewise, the placental cells would fail to manufacture progesterone or perform their other vital tasks without a blood supply, which the mother’s heart generates. Thus, the placenta and heart function interdependently to knit a baby.So, which came first? The heart could not have come first since it would not have formed without the placenta. But if the placenta came first, it could not have worked without a heart. Both organs had to arise simultaneously, pointing toward a sudden miracle!

The Cambrian Explosion

“ To be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”
-Walter remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]

In the early Cambrian Rocks 100 phylum [only 30 living today, phylum is largest category of organism species, genus, family etc. ] Are found in the "lowest" level of rocks called the Cambrian. It is were life first appears in the fossil record. So more diversity of life appears there, than alive today, with no fossils before it at all. No transitional forms for them.There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion I can give no satisfactory answer.

“all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian”
-Rudolf raff evolutionary biologist 2009

“Cambrian period of only 20mya”
Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth

“ It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million yearsAnd we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."
 —*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” 
-Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian ( *Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).

Origin of Sexually Reproduction

Reproduction needs complete complementary reproductive organs, but evolution is not goal orientated or able to plan ahead, how could all the complex organs develop over thousands of generations when the organism cannot produce without them? And suppose to happen in same place and time?
Complexity of reproductive system

Origin of non Material Things like Information, Love, Memory, Laws of Logic, Science, Morality etc

If evolution were true and all there was is just matter and motion. How could things like love memory morality information exist? If evolution were true, science would not make sense.

Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.

Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.

But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.

Design and Complexity

If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?

"Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."
—*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
-Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.

So it seems to me the clear answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation. There are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimeter across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
-Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.

biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information. each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt?

The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were , how many and when.

Some functions of cellular machines DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands
Intracellular elevators
Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports
Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states
Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion
Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor
A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks
A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.

Biovision harvard

protein being made

An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e

“if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!”
-In the beginig walt brown

Two free quick videos on complexity
free 4 part video of the complexity of the human reproduction systems
the hearing ear
the seeing eye

Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

Law of Thermodynamics

evolution teaches matter is not conservative but self originating - the first law of thermodynamics disproves this
first law -energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed . energy may be changed from one form into another but the total amount remains unchanged the sum total of the energy (or its matter) will always remain the same

no new matter or energy will make itself. since matter /energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself only a outside agency or power can make or destroy it. the creation of the universe must be non material because if it was material it would be subject to decay like all material, so the creator must be non material spiritual and eternal psalm 90.2

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

This law is completely constant with creation from order to disorder. Stars blow up, run out of fuel, mutations kill destroy, things go from complex to disorganized. We see stars dying not being created, life is not just pooping up around us. You have to make repairs to your car and house when things are left to themselves they disintegrate deteriorate, most jobs are because of the second law. We have never observed the opposite things going from disorder to order less complex to more[without outside intelligence].
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge

Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont - 07-22-2018, 01:42 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)